Well that was expected by everybody, especially once Custance went there after ESPN. The Athletic has seriously exploded recently. Not even just on the hockey side of things too. Getting Ken Rosenthal for the baseball side of things was huge too.

Well that was expected by everybody, especially once Custance went there after ESPN. The Athletic has seriously exploded recently. Not even just on the hockey side of things too. Getting Ken Rosenthal for the baseball side of things was huge too.

Going full vertical on NHL and MLB and other sports coverage, picking up the pieces mainstream sports media has lost due to their archaic financial model.

The Athletic TO dropped their beat writer, David Alter, though, and I'm not sure why. They picked up Scott Wheeler instead (full-time now) for Leafs and Marlies and draft coverage.

Bowen: I haven’t been this excited for a Maple Leafs season since the early ninetieshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2mjbIpSH9MHealy: League perception of Leafs is called “envy”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlotXeux1V4&t=7s

Are they able to pay all these people? Seems to be growing quite quickly.

I'm skeptical about The Athletic model. Cobble a bunch of former writers together who mostly were laid off because people don't want to pay for content these days, to write for a site that forces people to pay for content.

I'd love to know how The Athletic is able to pay all these people a more than reasonable salary they're accustomed to..

I'm skeptical about The Athletic model. Cobble a bunch of former writers together who mostly were laid off because people don't want to pay for content these days, to write for a site that forces people to pay for content.

I'd love to know how The Athletic is able to pay all these people a more than reasonable salary they're accustomed to..

I guess the thinking is that unlike something like ESPN Insider this is wide ranging while at the same time very focused to sports fans. Also, I imagine that after the layoffs made by newspapers and places like ESPN this is an appeal to a certain kind of fan who really likes a particular type of traditional sports coverage at the same time that sort of coverage is rapidly disappearing.

Are they able to pay all these people? Seems to be growing quite quickly.

I'm skeptical about The Athletic model. Cobble a bunch of former writers together who mostly were laid off because people don't want to pay for content these days, to write for a site that forces people to pay for content.

I'd love to know how The Athletic is able to pay all these people a more than reasonable salary they're accustomed to..

Say, for instance, that the average subscriber pays $40 / yr (most will sign up with a discount). 100k subscribers gives you 4 million in revenue. Take some off the top for running the site, $ to travel with teams (for the few who are on the beat) etc and you probably have enough leftover for 20-25 writers getting paid decently and a few others who freelance. I bet they've already surpassed those numbers too.

Say, for instance, that the average subscriber pays $40 / yr (most will sign up with a discount). 100k subscribers gives you 4 million in revenue. Take some off the top for running the site, $ to travel with teams (for the few who are on the beat) etc and you probably have enough leftover for 20-25 writers getting paid decently and a few others who freelance. I bet they've already surpassed those numbers too.

Are they able to pay all these people? Seems to be growing quite quickly.

I'm skeptical about The Athletic model. Cobble a bunch of former writers together who mostly were laid off because people don't want to pay for content these days, to write for a site that forces people to pay for content.

I'd love to know how The Athletic is able to pay all these people a more than reasonable salary they're accustomed to..

They have venture capital backing, and a very low overhead model relative to the traditional print outlets (it's really the copious travel expenses that might bite into profits). The journalists also get to write about whatever they want (within reason) at whatever length and that, from a creative aspect, is attractive. They also don't have to tweet/blog/video for clicks/ad impressions if they don't want to.

Say, for instance, that the average subscriber pays $40 / yr (most will sign up with a discount). 100k subscribers gives you 4 million in revenue. Take some off the top for running the site, $ to travel with teams (for the few who are on the beat) etc and you probably have enough leftover for 20-25 writers getting paid decently and a few others who freelance. I bet they've already surpassed those numbers too.

100,000 paid subscribers in the internet age is a ton.

The other day their co-founder said that 100,000 subs was the goal by the end of the year.

The journalists also get to write about whatever they want (within reason) at whatever length and that, from a creative aspect, is attractive. They also don't have to tweet/blog/video for clicks/ad impressions if they don't want to.

This is one of the things I wonder. For guys like Lebrun and Rosenthal, who also have TV gigs, I wonder if a certain level of editorial freedom maybe might sell them on a gig that doesn't pay all that well to a traditional media gig. Especially if, like I said, they have supplemental income.

The other day their co-founder said that 100,000 subs was the goal by the end of the year.

Sure and we could parse that to argue whether it means they're close to that number or they aren't. But the key for a new venture isn't hitting a particular number it's then retaining that subscriber base.

All are fair points. But it does also make me wonder why such a business setup wasn't thought of long ago.

It'll be interesting to see what comes of it. I'm actually surprised they would have such a big subscription base considering how adverse people are to paying for content. With that being said, I'm not a subscriber and I don't foresee myself becoming one either.

All are fair points. But it does also make me wonder why such a business setup wasn't thought of long ago.

It'll be interesting to see what comes of it. I'm actually surprised they would have such a big subscription base considering how adverse people are to paying for content. With that being said, I'm not a subscriber and I don't foresee myself becoming one either.

I've tried it out for this year. They have some good articles, but then there's so much information on the web for free that I don't know if I can justify the cost for me. It doesn't hurt that they launched just as the Leafs are getting good again, as I'm sure a huge chunk of their base is Toronto fans. Not sure if they'll last but it'll be interesting to see that's for sure.

All are fair points. But it does also make me wonder why such a business setup wasn't thought of long ago.

It'll be interesting to see what comes of it. I'm actually surprised they would have such a big subscription base considering how adverse people are to paying for content. With that being said, I'm not a subscriber and I don't foresee myself becoming one either.

It's all in the timing.

Newspapers are contracting as they scramble to adjust to the digital era and cutting their sports departments. The blogosphere has reached saturation as the type of writing the good ones were doing have started to be noticed on a mainstream level (Sportsnet, newspapers, and even actual teams hiring out of that pool), demonstrating that there is an appetite for sports analysis beyond game recaps. The mobile hardware and app market has reached a maturity to the point where that's how most people are consuming content these days.

As for paying, I think people don't mind paying a nominal amount for what they deem to be good content in an ad and hassle-free environment (see Netflix). The target demographic is a post-Napster generation.

If you get a chance to check out the comments in The Athletic, the level of engagement there is quite a bit above the reddits/blogs/newspapers/youtube communities (that subscription threshold really helps weed out the chaff).

All are fair points. But it does also make me wonder why such a business setup wasn't thought of long ago.

It'll be interesting to see what comes of it. I'm actually surprised they would have such a big subscription base considering how adverse people are to paying for content. With that being said, I'm not a subscriber and I don't foresee myself becoming one either.

I've tried it out for this year. They have some good articles, but then there's so much information on the web for free that I don't know if I can justify the cost for me. It doesn't hurt that they launched just as the Leafs are getting good again, as I'm sure a huge chunk of their base is Toronto fans. Not sure if they'll last but it'll be interesting to see that's for sure.

I guess everyone is in a different financial position than I, but for me the free information on the web is subpar compared to the quality of the content I am reading there, and thus it justifies the cost to me. Plus, no clickbait, no auto-play videos, no ads.

As for paying, I think people don't mind paying a nominal amount for what they deem to be good content in an ad and hassle-free environment (see Netflix). The target demographic is a post-Napster generation.

The problem with that comparison, or alternately that it's apt in a way you don't acknowledge is that, A) Netflix is 20 billion dollars in debt and B) It's becoming clearer that Netflix's survival headed into the future is largely based on having exclusive content. As good as I'm sure the Athletic is, there's still lots of free places to get analysis. As subjectively good as some of the Athletic writers are, how good would Netflix be doing if, for free, you could get a show that was effectively 90% of what Daredevil or Narcos or The Crown was?

I guess everyone is in a different financial position than I, but for me the free information on the web is subpar compared to the quality of the content I am reading there, and thus it justifies the cost to me. Plus, no clickbait, no auto-play videos, no ads.

I suppose the irony in this for me is that a bunch of these writers were previously with outlets that provide free content (or at least you can get around it to get such free content).

The problem with that comparison, or alternately that it's apt in a way you don't acknowledge is that, A) Netflix is 20 billion dollars in debt and B) It's becoming clearer that Netflix's survival headed into the future is largely based on having exclusive content.

I wasn't so much sidestepping the Netflix debt as I was just simply forgetting about it :) It's a very fair point about the longevity of a subscription model (that all major software platforms have shifted to).

As subjectively good as some of the Athletic writers are, how good would Netflix be doing if, for free, you could get a show that was effectively 90% of what Daredevil or Narcos or The Crown was?

That's an interesting question that I don't have a full answer to at the moment. TV is an interesting beast and Netflix's prime competitor is outright piracy. I don't think The Athletic really has a true competitor at the moment with ESPN and Yahoo! and other sports-specific properties hemorrhaging.

What I can say is that the Athletic content I was consuming for free (at the time) was definitely a cut above what other resources I could find, insofar as Leafs coverage went, and there isn't such a large piracy market for paywalled written content. And similar to the Apple-effect, whatever people might feel about Apple products, I don't think I can deny the trickle-down effect it has on the rest of the market when their competition feels driven to up their game (or copy); I think The Athletic is driving the sports analysis conversation in a positive direction.

I wasn't so much sidestepping the Netflix debt as I was just simply forgetting about it :) It's a very fair point about the longevity of a subscription model (that all major software platforms have shifted to).

Well, to Sportsify it up, in some ways what's happening to Netflix mirrors what happened to the Oakland A's. They built a great deal of success by capitalizing on an undervalued commodity(in Netflix's case, the streaming rights to major studios/networks libraries) but are now faced with the reality that their success means those commodities may now be overvalued and somehow have to pivot to another thing. Netflix, now, effectively wants to be a standalone HBO. Can that work? Sure, but there are only so many Game of Thrones to go around.

To some extent the Athletic is like that. There may very well be a market for people who really want to read about whether or not Second Baseman X's throwing angle on turning double-plays leads to a higher conversion rate than Second Baseman Y's and good for them. But could it survive a competitor? Or could it's success handle some of their own staff being hired away?

That's an interesting question that I don't have a full answer to at the moment. TV is an interesting beast and Netflix's prime competitor is outright piracy. I don't think The Athletic really has a true competitor at the moment with ESPN and Yahoo! and other sports-specific properties hemorrhaging.

ESPN isn't doing incredibly well financially right now(to tie all this in, largely because of people cord-cutting for streaming but also because of TV rights bubbles bursting) but they're still competitors. They still have good writers writing good things about sports and sports folks. I just read an excellent Aaron Rodgers profile over there. They still have The Undefeated which, while marginalized, at the very least makes me feel less like it's a paean to people screaming "Stick to Sprots!" while the world burns.

Toss in Deadspin, The Ringer, Yahoo and so on and there's more competition out there for analysis and such than you're making it seem.

I guess everyone is in a different financial position than I, but for me the free information on the web is subpar compared to the quality of the content I am reading there, and thus it justifies the cost to me. Plus, no clickbait, no auto-play videos, no ads.

I suppose the irony in this for me is that a bunch of these writers were previously with outlets that provide free content (or at least you can get around it to get such free content).

I'm not sure I see the irony. a) Most of them lost their jobs because those outlets providing free content could no longer afford to pay them. ie, Revenue problem. b) In a lot of cases, these writers were also constrained by the limitations on newspaper writing (deadlines for print, word count limits, etc) or free-content websites (ie, need to drive the clicks to generate ad revenue).

These writers, almost all of them, have said in their "why I'm joining the athletic" articles that it was time to try a new model (subscriber revenue vs ad revenue) and its exciting to them that they don't have the above mentioned limitations on their writing.

Fair enough. And to be clear, that's something I can't really speak to as I've never been the market for day to day beat coverage.

It basically comes down to tastes, which, for me, the Athletic is fulfilling: deep beats, analytics dives, video/play structure breakdowns, and sprinkled with behind-the-curtain peeks at management/players. They get the press access that the other (free) blogs I follow don't always get firsthand, and the freedom to actually write about it.

Some of those other outlets have that access, but the focus is different (still interesting, but not something I'd pursue outright), and thus live on my periphery.

I'm not sure I see the irony. a) Most of them lost their jobs because those outlets providing free content could no longer afford to pay them. ie, Revenue problem. b) In a lot of cases, these writers were also constrained by the limitations on newspaper writing (deadlines for print, word count limits, etc) or free-content websites (ie, need to drive the clicks to generate ad revenue).

These writers, almost all of them, have said in their "why I'm joining the athletic" articles that it was time to try a new model (subscriber revenue vs ad revenue) and its exciting to them that they don't have the above mentioned limitations on their writing.

Basically what I'm getting at is that if people weren't paying to subscribe to these outlets before to read these writers, which not doing so led to them being let go, why would I do so now?

Maybe it's just me not particularly latching onto any writers before that I feel I would do so now, even with more free reign and under a different format.

It basically comes down to tastes, which, for me, the Athletic is fulfilling: deep beats, analytics dives, video/play structure breakdowns, and sprinkled with behind-the-curtain peeks at management/players. They get the press access that the other (free) blogs I follow don't always get firsthand, and the freedom to actually write about it.

Some of those other outlets have that access, but the focus is different (still interesting, but not something I'd pursue outright), and thus live on my periphery.

Yeah, I agree. To some extent that's sort of my larger question. You and I, I think it's fair to say, are both pretty big Leafs/Hockey fans. You seem slightly more interested in the X's and O's than I am(although that interests me to a degree) whereas I guess I'm more interested in looking at the larger societal frameworks that it all represents(although I'm sure you have opinions on public stadium financing too).

So I agree that the Athletic seems to be doing a job in speaking to what you want and, to be fair, they have a lot of good writers who I liked reading for free. Moreover I know that if they went out and hired writers who tend to speak more to my side of things like Tommy Craggs or Diana Moskovitz or Don Van Natta Jr. then a lot of people on your side of the fence would see it as an unwelcome intrusion of the serious into what is, for them, largely a recreational pasttime.

So, that, I guess is my larger question. Whether or not the Athletic can be successful long term speaking to a narrow subset of a subset of sports fans. I mean, best of luck to them, I think it's a worthwhile endeavour even if I kind of think it subtly ends up being pro-a lot of the things I don't like.

Didn't Grantland (or whatever it was called) try this model already? Or was that free?

I'm fairly sure Grantland was always free and, although I can't remember the specifics, i seem to remember Bill Simmons or someone saying that while they occasionally looked at subscription models all of their market research said they just couldn't get enough people to pay.

And Grantland, silly as it was sometimes, was an exceptional collection of talent.

Didn't Grantland (or whatever it was called) try this model already? Or was that free?

I'm fairly sure Grantland was always free and, although I can't remember the specifics, i seem to remember Bill Simmons or someone saying that while they occasionally looked at subscription models all of their market research said they just couldn't get enough people to pay.

And Grantland, silly as it was sometimes, was an exceptional collection of talent.

Thanks. I guess I never will understand how some of these very famous internet firms can run up huge red ink (at least for their first few years) and still survive. Like Netflix, apparently.

FWIW I think the Athletic is right to charge. It's really pernicious that people think writers ought to provide content for free. The problem is not just digital, it pervades the traditional publishing world (where the royalties, never large except for the superstars, have shrunk to an insultingly low level). In the UK the main professional writers' trade group is really pressing this issue right now.

I'm not sure I see the irony. a) Most of them lost their jobs because those outlets providing free content could no longer afford to pay them. ie, Revenue problem. b) In a lot of cases, these writers were also constrained by the limitations on newspaper writing (deadlines for print, word count limits, etc) or free-content websites (ie, need to drive the clicks to generate ad revenue).

These writers, almost all of them, have said in their "why I'm joining the athletic" articles that it was time to try a new model (subscriber revenue vs ad revenue) and its exciting to them that they don't have the above mentioned limitations on their writing.

Basically what I'm getting at is that if people weren't paying to subscribe to these outlets before to read these writers, which not doing so led to them being let go, why would I do so now?

Maybe it's just me not particularly latching onto any writers before that I feel I would do so now, even with more free reign and under a different format.

Well, I never subscribed to ESPN Insider because the content wasn't focused enough on the Leafs/Raptors/Jays etc. The rest of the writers came from free outlets, so your comment only applies to a small percentage of their writing team.

Also, I'm not particularly "latched" to any writer in particular- but the content I've seen from Bourne, Dellow, Dom, etc has been very good and I look forward to their articles now. I am happy to pay them more directly for their work.

By the by, if you're looking for some Justin Bourne content but aren't subscribed to the Athletic, he goes over many of the same topics in the latest Leafs Geeks Podcast: https://theleafsnation.com/2017/09/04/the-leafs-geeks-podcast-episode-57-justin-bourne/

Are they able to pay all these people? Seems to be growing quite quickly.

I'm skeptical about The Athletic model. Cobble a bunch of former writers together who mostly were laid off because people don't want to pay for content these days, to write for a site that forces people to pay for content.

I'd love to know how The Athletic is able to pay all these people a more than reasonable salary they're accustomed to..

Well, here's my rationale for paying for the Athletic: Most of my favourite writers have either jumped ship or have been laid off from traditional papers. I still want quality content from quality writers (not slagging PPP or MLHS... But I like these writers more - enough more that I'm willing to pay a subscription). As well there's some non Leafs coverage that is also high quality that I can access if I so choose.

Maybe they're all taking a pay cut and their salaries will scale with growth, maybe they're paid a portion in internal share ownership, no idea. But so far the model seems to have enough traction or these people wouldn't jump ship.

Yeah, I agree. To some extent that's sort of my larger question. You and I, I think it's fair to say, are both pretty big Leafs/Hockey fans. You seem slightly more interested in the X's and O's than I am(although that interests me to a degree) whereas I guess I'm more interested in looking at the larger societal frameworks that it all represents(although I'm sure you have opinions on public stadium financing too).

So I agree that the Athletic seems to be doing a job in speaking to what you want and, to be fair, they have a lot of good writers who I liked reading for free. Moreover I know that if they went out and hired writers who tend to speak more to my side of things like Tommy Craggs or Diana Moskovitz or Don Van Natta Jr. then a lot of people on your side of the fence would see it as an unwelcome intrusion of the serious into what is, for them, largely a recreational pasttime.

So, that, I guess is my larger question. Whether or not the Athletic can be successful long term speaking to a narrow subset of a subset of sports fans. I mean, best of luck to them, I think it's a worthwhile endeavour even if I kind of think it subtly ends up being pro-a lot of the things I don't like.

We've got a lot of overlap, but I'll be first to admit that the investigative journalism of the intersection between sports and the real world are normally low on my priority list (unless it drifts into salacious territory). I'm interested in expanding and learning though.

Would you happen to have a primer list of such writings to whet my (and probably others') appetite?

Does this mean that Patrick O'Sullivan is off Leafs lunch? That guy was difficult to listen to.

I'm trying get through the first 10-15 min to see if they talk at all about the hosting logistics. It sounds like a fairly permanent addition at least to TSN in general, which also opens up the potential for Johnson to double duty as in-game analysis.

I'm skeptical about The Athletic model. Cobble a bunch of former writers together who mostly were laid off because people don't want to pay for content these days, to write for a site that forces people to pay for content.

I'd love to know how The Athletic is able to pay all these people a more than reasonable salary they're accustomed to..

I guess the thinking is that unlike something like ESPN Insider this is wide ranging while at the same time very focused to sports fans. Also, I imagine that after the layoffs made by newspapers and places like ESPN this is an appeal to a certain kind of fan who really likes a particular type of traditional sports coverage at the same time that sort of coverage is rapidly disappearing.

A lot of sports sites that I have used for many years have evolved. One i can think of that used to produce lots of really good written articles was Cricinfo, a global cricket website. Like baseball cricket is a sport that produces some really good prose.

Over the last few years I have noted that when you see an article headline and click on it there's a good chance you'll get some 4 minute video of a couple of random people talking about it. I barely use that site any more. I miss the great written content.

I've never been tempted to subscribe to a sport website before. The Athletic is certainly the first to really tempt me and especially now more so that they've expanded to several cities.

I hope it works out. There is a space for real proper in depth prose that I don't think you get now broadsheet newspaper have died off and online news is very much video sound bite focused

We've got a lot of overlap, but I'll be first to admit that the investigative journalism of the intersection between sports and the real world are normally low on my priority list (unless it drifts into salacious territory). I'm interested in expanding and learning though.

Would you happen to have a primer list of such writings to whet my (and probably others') appetite?

As it relates to hockey specifically? Not really. I think there's a real dearth of that out there because there isn't enough American interest to really drive coverage and effectively all of Canadian media is owned by people/companies with vested financial interest in the NHL. To say nothing of certain traditional-suit wearing folk who very much seem wedded to the notion of criticizing hockey being in and of itself to be unpatriotic.

I hope it works out. There is a space for real proper in depth prose that I don't think you get now broadsheet newspaper have died off and online news is very much video sound bite focused

I'd like to think so too but, and I may be wrong, but it doesn't really seem like that's this site's focus. They aren't really hiring prose-centered writers or doing long-form stuff, they seem more to be inclined towards "Insider scoops" and, you know, game analysis.

I hope it works out. There is a space for real proper in depth prose that I don't think you get now broadsheet newspaper have died off and online news is very much video sound bite focused

I'd like to think so too but, and I may be wrong, but it doesn't really seem like that's this site's focus. They aren't really hiring prose-centered writers or doing long-form stuff, they seem more to be inclined towards "Insider scoops" and, you know, game analysis.

Yeah as I said I hadn't read it as yet bar the odd free article which is definitely a step up from what you'd see in the Toronto Sun or whatever. The impression I got was that the long prose was what they were aiming for and I do think if they're not someone will or should

The Athletic does have the standard beat coverage and game day stories, but they get into think piece territory quite often per the writer's specialty.

For examples (from the Toronto side of NHL coverage) of stuff that I like (which you're all probably aware already as I just re-share it here anyway):

Jack Han basically does a long form version of his 1-minute Tactics video breaking down plays from a coaching and strategy perspective, illustrating why a team is doing this and whether or not it is effective.

Tyler Dellow sees something in the video or data, asks a question about it, and then does a deep dive into interesting slices of data pivots. Most recently, his interest was piqued by a coach saying a certain player was good at line changes, so he tracked the plays and shot metrics following line changes and found that Matthews was a cut above the rest (https://theathletic.com/93085/2017/09/04/dellow-another-way-auston-matthews-helps-the-leafs-how-he-gets-off-the-ice/).

Justin Bourne gives a coach's perspective on what they look for in players that might make the NHL jump, as well as insight into the human side-effects of asset management. He'll be adding team structural analyses across the league soon as he did before.

Sean Tierney expands on the visuals that he has been putting together, pulling out interesting highlights on passing and zone entry/exit data that's being publicly collected.

Scott Wheeler, formerly of PPP, lends a scouts eye to prospect profiles and now covers the Marlies and the Draft from the Leafs' perspective.

Corey Pronman is basically doing what he did before, but under a different banner, so now I actually get to read it.

Mirtle is also writing much the same that he did before, but without the prescribed formula the newspaper format had. His podcast with Jonas Siegel is still around, but pretty short and occasional.

Further to Herman's post, The Athletic features newcomer Karolina Urban (a former player) covering Women's hockey, plus their Toronto assistant managing editor is Sunaya Sapurji, who will also be covering the Leafs occasionally.

As an early subscriber to the Athletic, (I received an extra bit of discount on top of the promo price when I emailed Alex Mather concerning a question about payment plans), I have been looking forward to reading whatever unique content is presented by their very informative writers.

Glad I subscribed, for in the words of Edith Piaf..."Je ne regrette rien!" :)

Further to Herman's post, The Athletic features newcomer Karolina Urban (a former player) covering Women's hockey, plus their Toronto assistant managing editor is Sunaya Sapurji, who will also be covering the Leafs occasionally.

I'm interested to see where women's hockey goes with the additional coverage. PPP has been making a concerted effort in this regard as well. Unfortunately the league(s) are in a weird state where it's a bit of Betamax vs VHS (or iPod vs Zune? BluRay vs HD-DVD?) situation. The women's game is all speed and skill, without any of that enforcer garbage; I wish it were more accessible (to someone lazy like me) beyond Olympic events.

Usually, I copy/paste the web link of the tweet and then paste the link again swapping out the https:// for www. so people using apps/browsers that doesn't show the auto-embed have a shot at opening the link.

Usually, I copy/paste the web link of the tweet and then paste the link again swapping out the https:// for www. so people using apps/browsers that doesn't show the auto-embed have a shot at opening the link.

A damn good collection of bloggers. Like during the awful Leafs years, it seems like teams being perpetually awful have a tendency to create some really good writers who cover them as a hobby. Jonathan Willis, Allan Mitchell (Lowetide), and Pat McLean (blackdogpat) have been some people I've read for a long time and they're terrific.

Just a heads up: current subscriptions get access to the whole shebang, but down the road, they're going to start parceling out the subscriptions to either cities or sports (or combo of both). Early subscribers will continue to be grandfathered into the whole thing.

Just a heads up: current subscriptions get access to the whole shebang, but down the road, they're going to start parceling out the subscriptions to either cities or sports (or combo of both). Early subscribers will continue to be grandfathered into the whole thing.

Well, I'd say he skirted the question a little and kept it vague. I'd take it as they MAY switch to a subscription per city model. Or, in another response he had to a question about tiers, they may switch to a model where you pay for the amount of access you want. ie, smaller price for city only, higher price for nationwide access. They are still figuring out where to go, no doubt but did say they will grandfather people in.

I remember really early last season they had deals where you paid $29.99 or $34.99 per year and I was hesitant. I finally signed up at $39.99 per year. Now, you can sign up for a discount, but the discount is only for the first year!

Say, for instance, that the average subscriber pays $40 / yr (most will sign up with a discount). 100k subscribers gives you 4 million in revenue. Take some off the top for running the site, $ to travel with teams (for the few who are on the beat) etc and you probably have enough leftover for 20-25 writers getting paid decently and a few others who freelance. I bet they've already surpassed those numbers too.

100,000 paid subscribers in the internet age is a ton.

The other day their co-founder said that 100,000 subs was the goal by the end of the year.

I swear I'm not trying to be too much of a shill for these guys, but if anybody is still on the fence or was waiting for closer to the start of the season to subscribe, their 30% discount ends tomorrow.

I remember someone around here was saying they were waiting for a 40% discount period because those were offered before but at this point I don't see that happening. This will probably be the last discount they offer before the season starts I'm guessing.*

The Athletic is pretty much the anti-Steve Simmons. There is zero chance they'd want him. I also had to hold my tongue yesterday when somebody on Twitter was urging Al Strachan to be a writer at the Athletic.

Invalid Tweet IDSo, people getting promo rates for the Athletic get locked in at that rate forever? I feel kind of ripped off for being an early subscriber/supporter and paying full price. I understand a sale price, but a sale price that lasts forever on a subscription?

Heard on Naylor & Landsberg this morning they were tossing around the idea of trading Marner for Doughty.

So far in the media we've traded away both Nylander and Marner. I love these shows.

The Doughty-to-Toronto rumours are going to go into overdrive with Drew pretty bluntly saying that he won't re-sign with the Kings if they aren't contenders (which they won't be).

It's just annoying that I've waited my entire life to see the Leafs draft and develop their own star players, and now we finally have a bunch of these guys and the media is looking for ways to trade them away.

Heard on Naylor & Landsberg this morning they were tossing around the idea of trading Marner for Doughty.

So far in the media we've traded away both Nylander and Marner. I love these shows.

The Doughty-to-Toronto rumours are going to go into overdrive with Drew pretty bluntly saying that he won't re-sign with the Kings if they aren't contenders (which they won't be).

It's just annoying that I've waited my entire life to see the Leafs draft and develop their own star players, and now we finally have a bunch of these guys and the media is looking for ways to trade them away.

Media is way less annoying when you pick and choose who to listen to :) or determine how much salt to add.

In any case, Doughty is a free agent in 2019, and he'll be 29. We won't necessarily have to trade for him, but at the same time, I'm not so sure I want to splurge there.

It's just annoying that I've waited my entire life to see the Leafs draft and develop their own star players, and now we finally have a bunch of these guys and the media is looking for ways to trade them away.

With the end goal of trying to make the team better so they have a better chance of winning a cup, something I've waited my entire life for. You can disagree with the premise that Doughty would do that if it cost Marner but to not like media guys discussing the possibility seems counter-productive.

Naylor announced this morning that today is his last show on radio. He's focusing more on TV. Anyone know who is replacing him. Landsberg was ok on OTR but very hard to listen to on the radio IMHO.

Yeah I was surprised to hear that especially when they said he's leaving to focus on CFL coverage. I know he really loves the CFL but talk about a small audience. Not sure they made any announcement on who will replace him, but they need someone to keep Landsberg in check.

This is fantastic news. Corsica was basically out of pocket for Manny for awhile, and he tried Patreon this offseason to make ends meet while the site was down for upgrades. Putting it under the Nation Network umbrella will keep it funded and operational, even if Manny gets poached by a team. Hopefully it goes better than their previous analytics projects that fell off the stove.

My guess is no. Both because of the way he's sort of made fun of the Athletic recently and just because I don't think he fits what they do. If I were a betting man I might guess he either goes to Sportsnet and Marek vs. Wyshynski becomes a big thing or he goes to the Ringer.

My guess is no. Both because of the way he's sort of made fun of the Athletic recently and just because I don't think he fits what they do. If I were a betting man I might guess he either goes to Sportsnet and Marek vs. Wyshynski becomes a big thing or he goes to the Ringer.

It turns out Wyshinski and Dave Lozo are going to be adding a subscription option for bonus content with their Puck Soup podcast. There will continue to be the regular podcast, plus bonus podcast content available for $1/month and $5/month options through Patreon.

It turns out Wyshinski and Dave Lozo are going to be adding a subscription option for bonus content with their Puck Soup podcast. There will continue to be the regular podcast, plus bonus podcast content available for $1/month and $5/month options through Patreon.

Huh. I have to think he's going to have other irons in the fire though. I don't know how successful the not-free podcast model is.

Title: Re: Media Thread
Post by: Arn on October 07, 2017, 12:34:16 PM

I finally got round to taking out a subscription to the Athletic. The tipping point was really the national coverage of NHL and the MLB coverage also.

I have to say I'm very impressed so far. It's so clean and the small monthly payment to have no ads is definitely worth it. The writing is also very good and I like the fact the platform gives the writers freedom to write what they actually want to without being restricted by copy lengths for traditional media. I've only had it a couple of days and gave tried to explore a little but first impressions are very positive

I finally got round to taking out a subscription to the Athletic. The tipping point was really the national coverage of NHL and the MLB coverage also.

I have to say I'm very impressed so far. It's so clean and the small monthly payment to have no ads is definitely worth it. The writing is also very good and I like the fact the platform gives the writers freedom to write what they actually want to without being restricted by copy lengths for traditional media. I've only had it a couple of days and gave tried to explore a little but first impressions are very positive

It turns out Wyshinski and Dave Lozo are going to be adding a subscription option for bonus content with their Puck Soup podcast. There will continue to be the regular podcast, plus bonus podcast content available for $1/month and $5/month options through Patreon.

Huh. I have to think he's going to have other irons in the fire though. I don't know how successful the not-free podcast model is.

I was kind of hoping that he was going to land with the Ringer. I've noticed a fair amount of hockey stories coming from their feed this season. But I've never heard of any of the people writing them, so it would have been nice for them to have a bigger personality leading the way like Wysh.

Anyway, ESPN seemed to lose what little respect the hockey community had for them in the summer when they gutted that department, so it'll be interesting to see if he can help rebuild that. They also finally got Katie Nolan out of FS1. She of course doesn't focus on hockey but those are two pretty good signings for them.

I was kind of hoping that he was going to land with the Ringer. I've noticed a fair amount of hockey stories coming from their feed this season. But I've never heard of any of the people writing them, so it would have been nice for them to have a bigger personality leading the way like Wysh.

Anyway, ESPN seemed to lose what little respect the hockey community had for them in the summer when they gutted that department, so it'll be interesting to see if he can help rebuild that. They also finally got Katie Kolan out of FS1. She of course doesn't focus on hockey but those are two pretty good signings for them.

It's funny though. His last ever big piece for Yahoo is effectively the sort of thing ESPN is suspending people for now.

I've never thought of Wyshkynski as being a great stylist or having some unique insight into the way the game was played, he's always been valuable because of his lack of concern for challenging conventions and giving the established hockey culture a good whacking when it needs it. The idea that ESPN will let him do that there seems...questionable.

I've never thought of Wyshkynski as being a great stylist or having some unique insight into the way the game was played, he's always been valuable because of his lack of concern for challenging conventions and giving the established hockey culture a good whacking when it needs it. The idea that ESPN will let him do that there seems...questionable.

Yeah, that's all basically why I thought a place like the Ringer would have been a better fit for him. But at the same time I think you can say similar things about Nolan, at least in regards to not being afraid to speak out and as you said give "a good whacking when it needs it". I agree it seems questionable but why go after two people like that who are both known to try and shake the status quo.

Yeah, that's all basically why I thought a place like the Ringer would have been a better fit for him. But at the same time I think you can say similar things about Nolan, at least in regards to not being afraid to speak out and as you said give "a good whacking when it needs it".

It's not just that you can say similar things about her but people have and are:

I agree it seems questionable but why go after two people like that who are both known to try and shake the status quo.

Because I don't think ESPN is that sophisticated about these things. They see people like Nolan and Wyshynski who have relatively big followings and assume they can convert that to eyeballs without really considering the implication of expecting people to be themselves while conforming to their expected corporate culture.

It's basically what we're seeing right now with ESPN and Jemele Hill. She got to where she was by being very different from establishment voices so ESPN hired her, gave her a big deal time slot and, well, now they're feuding with the President.

Because I don't think ESPN is that sophisticated about these things. They see people like Nolan and Wyshynski who have relatively big followings and assume they can convert that to eyeballs without really considering the implication of expecting people to be themselves while conforming to their expected corporate culture.

It's basically what we're seeing right now with ESPN and Jemele Hill. She got to where she was by being very different from establishment voices so ESPN hired her, gave her a big deal time slot and, well, now they're feuding with the President.

Yeah, that's fair. I realize that I shouldn't be giving ESPN the benefit of the doubt in any way, but for Wysh and Nolan's sakes I hope they're given the freedom to let their strengths/talents shine. At least they're both white so Trump probably won't bother with them if they say anything negative about him.

He's famous because he painted his face and somebody else on twitter made it a big thing. Going through his twitter feed from time to time his hockey takes/analysis isn't even all that interesting/note-worthy. Also how many people out there are busting their asses off to make it in a career like that one who never get the chance while this guy just stumbles backwards into it. I know that's not his fault and stuff like that happens all the time but it's just annoying. His 15 minutes should have been over 7 months ago.

I get that he might not have earned it, but I don't blame him for riding the whole thing for as long as he can. While he might not have the most nuanced opinions, he has always seemed genuinely pleasant whenever I've heard him speak.

I also don't think him getting this opportunity prevents others from having success, one thing hockey twitter has proved, especially in the past five years, is that those doing great work almost inevitably get noticed, either by the big networks, teams or the league.

Honestly, begrudging him this chance is not a good look and one you might want to rethink because it seems strangely bitter.

He's famous because he painted his face and somebody else on twitter made it a big thing. Going through his twitter feed from time to time his hockey takes/analysis isn't even all that interesting/note-worthy. Also how many people out there are busting their asses off to make it in a career like that one who never get the chance while this guy just stumbles backwards into it. I know that's not his fault and stuff like that happens all the time but it's just annoying. His 15 minutes should have been over 7 months ago.

He's famous because he painted his face and somebody else on twitter made it a big thing. Going through his twitter feed from time to time his hockey takes/analysis isn't even all that interesting/note-worthy. Also how many people out there are busting their asses off to make it in a career like that one who never get the chance while this guy just stumbles backwards into it. I know that's not his fault and stuff like that happens all the time but it's just annoying. His 15 minutes should have been over 7 months ago.

Yeah well, welcome to the insane viral world we now live in where Grumpy Cat made a movie. And either way, meh. So many people are born into wealth and fame that don't deserve it that I don't really get too worked up over Dart Guy and a TSN show.

I get that he might not have earned it, but I don't blame him for riding the whole thing for as long as he can. While he might not have the most nuanced opinions, he has always seemed genuinely pleasant whenever I've heard him speak.

I think the issue is less with him, I think we'd all host a Leafs radio show if given the chance, and more with TSN giving it to him. For an organization that just let go of someone like Michael Farber it's not a great look.

I get that he might not have earned it, but I don't blame him for riding the whole thing for as long as he can. While he might not have the most nuanced opinions, he has always seemed genuinely pleasant whenever I've heard him speak.

I think the issue is less with him, I think we'd all host a Leafs radio show if given the chance, and more with TSN giving it to him. For an organization that just let go of someone like Michael Farber it's not a great look.

That's fair.

I think with the team on the upward trend, what we might have to get used to is the networks/stations starting to cater more to the "casual" fan who is now paying more attention because the team is good.

For anyone over 45 hearing Mirtle/Wheeler/Siegel talking about the game the way most of us have become comfortable with, might seem like a foreign language.

Do I agree with the programming choice? No, but as a businesses, I certainly understand why they might do it.

Do I agree with the programming choice? No, but as a businesses, I certainly understand why they might do it.

Without wanting to overstate the importance of how I feel about giving him this show(which is a profound meh) I think it's fair to say that, much like with what's going on right now at ESPN, there is a wide range of opinions of to what extent places like TSN have journalistic responsibility vs. should be thought of strictly as businesses.

Title: Re: Media Thread
Post by: Arn on October 18, 2017, 09:18:08 AM

An interesting story about the Leafs Euro scout and also an insight into how the Leafs have done the deals with Zaitsev, Borgman, Rosen etc

“We will wait every local paper out and let them continuously bleed until we are the last ones standing,” Alex Mather, a co-founder of The Athletic, said in an interview in San Francisco. “We will suck them dry of their best talent at every moment. We will make business extremely difficult for them.”

Yeah, that bit seems to be getting a lot of play. The idea that they're really hoping to kill off local sports sections and profit accordingly you'd hope is just typical start-up bluster as opposed to anything they're really depending on.

Yeah, that bit seems to be getting a lot of play. The idea that they're really hoping to kill off local sports sections and profit accordingly you'd hope is just typical start-up bluster as opposed to anything they're really depending on.

Definitely Silicon Valley startup bluster, but the quote is really tempered by the assessment of the field that follows that lead in.

Come follow-up on that quote, and this is where I knew they were coming from, but the framing of it made it sound like The Athletic is out to kill newspapers in general. It's more like... Noah's Ark for sports sections.

Definitely Silicon Valley startup bluster, but the quote is really tempered by the assessment of the field that follows that lead in.

I thought the notion that the company saw the recent spate of high profile layoffs as a unique business opportunity to be an interesting one as there's probably something to the idea that there was a lot of legitimate talent being jettisoned there.

I think, though, that the divide between the founders and the VC quoted on the future of integrating advertising into the site is probably going to be something to keep an eye on.

Come follow-up on that quote, and this is where I knew they were coming from, but the framing of it made it sound like The Athletic is out to kill newspapers in general. It's more like... Noah's Ark for sports sections.

I'm not sure the follow-ups improve things tremendously. Again, I get the typical tech-bro bluster but I think not saying something to the effect of "I want local sports sections to succeed in addition to our success" will leave a bad taste for media folk. Even if they don't believe it saying that they want their success to inspire others to raise their game rather than, you know, die would probably be better PR at this point.

Come follow-up on that quote, and this is where I knew they were coming from, but the framing of it made it sound like The Athletic is out to kill newspapers in general. It's more like... Noah's Ark for sports sections.

I'm not sure the follow-ups improve things tremendously. Again, I get the typical tech-bro bluster but I think not saying something to the effect of "I want local sports sections to succeed in addition to our success" will leave a bad taste for media folk. Even if they don't believe it saying that they want their success to inspire others to raise their game rather than, you know, die would probably be better PR at this point.

NYT may not have a quote saying that... but he already addressed it almost exactly as you said would be better PR:

and we are rooting for local papers to get the message. their actions generally defy rationality and lead me to believe they wont.

I think I would've positioned it as more of a sports reporting consultant group. Like a hyper focused Associated Press or Reuters for sports. Papers could mirror The Athletic content for their particular city of coverage for a nominal fee.

"Hey local newspaper. Costs are rising and your sports section is the first group to get the axe. We can help augment your readership's experience if you partner with us."

Sort of in general though this is actual a pretty good microcosm of one of the challenges of a startup. The article makes note of the fact that after so much focus on expansion and securing funding it's only now that The Athletic is hiring non revenue-generating staff or people who tend to get overlooked or, worse, outright deemed unnecessary by VC types. But ideally a good media relations staff would work to make sure this sort of thing didn't happen.

Hyper assholes is more like it. I can't stand those types. Another good reason not to subscribe.

How is that a reason not to subscribe? Its bad PR but I think you're naive if you think newspaper owners don't want to crush their competition. Anyway the content is good and writers deserve to be paid for their content. I'm tired of the sob story of newspapers basically backing a bad revenue model and now we should all feel bad for them that they cut whole departments.

Its bad PR but I think you're naive if you think newspaper owners don't want to crush their competition.

I think the issue there is that I don't really think that the New York Times views the Washington Post or the Toronto Star as their competitors. This is where the editorial/publishing overlap becomes a concern. I think generally speaking most people who are in the news business think a profitable industry is better than a monopoly which does sort of seem at odds with your modern Silicon Valley ethos.

Hyper assholes is more like it. I can't stand those types. Another good reason not to subscribe.

How is that a reason not to subscribe? Its bad PR but I think you're naive if you think newspaper owners don't want to crush their competition. Anyway the content is good and writers deserve to be paid for their content. I'm tired of the sob story of newspapers basically backing a bad revenue model and now we should all feel bad for them that they cut whole departments.

I'm naive? Where do you expect to get your news in say, 20 years? Or do you think quality reporting will just magically happen for free, just like it does now on the Internet?

Hyper assholes is more like it. I can't stand those types. Another good reason not to subscribe.

How is that a reason not to subscribe? Its bad PR but I think you're naive if you think newspaper owners don't want to crush their competition. Anyway the content is good and writers deserve to be paid for their content. I'm tired of the sob story of newspapers basically backing a bad revenue model and now we should all feel bad for them that they cut whole departments.

I'm naive? Where do you expect to get your news in say, 20 years? Or do you think quality reporting will just magically happen for free, just like it does now on the Internet?

Oh wait. It doesn't. What we get instead is torrents of horsecrap.

I hope these assholes go bankrupt, and the sooner the better.

Not trying to stir the pot, just wondering why his quote rankles you so much? You've used colorful language to describe this situation twice now, so it seems like this runs deeper than just this particular quote.

I really don't care one way the other about this debate. I don't buy newspapers, and I don't subscribe to The Athletic. Information is free. People can put their own opinions together if they want to from that information. What I find news outlets provide now is just a service to cobble the information together for me and present it in a pretty package. I don't really need that, but that's just me.

So there less outlets for talent sportswriters to make a living? Newspapers were cutting the budget of their sports staff long before these guys came around. The jobs in the more traditional print outlets are gone, and they're not coming back. If the Athletic goes, that just means there are even less jobs.

So there less outlets for talent sportswriters to make a living? Newspapers were cutting the budget of their sports staff long before these guys came around. The jobs in the more traditional print outlets are gone, and they're not coming back. If the Athletic goes, that just means there are even less jobs.

So there less outlets for talent sportswriters to make a living? Newspapers were cutting the budget of their sports staff long before these guys came around. The jobs in the more traditional print outlets are gone, and they're not coming back. If the Athletic goes, that just means there are even less jobs.

To step away from a second from who is or isn't an a-hole you do wonder about how the way they seem to look at their business model affects content. If they look at the supposed 100,000 Chicago die-hard sports fans as all being potential customers than can they really print stuff that's consistently challenging to any significant segment of that number?

This is sort of the issue Facebook and Twitter are having with content right now albeit in a much more benign form. They got to where they are via constant rapacious growth and, as a result, seem to have no interest or ability to have any sort of opinion on what their platform should be for other than the facilitation of that growth.

That's not necessarily a bad thing in this context, the Hot Take Industrial Complex doesn't need to be everywhere, but information without context or restraint isn't usually a good thing. There's a reason why traditional sports sections had columnists even if we only tend to remember the bad ones.

NYT may not have a quote saying that... but he already addressed it almost exactly as you said would be better PR:

Yeah, on the third pass he seems to have got it. To some extent that's closing the barn doors after the horse got out but that's the internet for you.

For sure. He gave the NYT a doozy of a quote that he can only try damage control on and it won't be enough anyways because barely anyone is going to check his tweets for more context.

Arrogance is never a good place to start, a little humility goes a long way. If your intent is to kill another media perhaps it is not a great idea to broadcast the fact. It has been said Revenge is a dish best served up cold, in this case a little magnanimity would go a lot further than a foot stomp on a curve.

To step away from a second from who is or isn't an a-hole you do wonder about how the way they seem to look at their business model affects content. If they look at the supposed 100,000 Chicago die-hard sports fans as all being potential customers than can they really print stuff that's consistently challenging to any significant segment of that number?

This is sort of the issue Facebook and Twitter are having with content right now albeit in a much more benign form. They got to where they are via constant rapacious growth and, as a result, seem to have no interest or ability to have any sort of opinion on what their platform should be for other than the facilitation of that growth.

That's not necessarily a bad thing in this context, the Hot Take Industrial Complex doesn't need to be everywhere, but information without context or restraint isn't usually a good thing. There's a reason why traditional sports sections had columnists even if we only tend to remember the bad ones.

That's a good point and while the Leafs young team have certainly made it easier to generally have a mostly positive outlook, the Montreal side of The Athletic has seemed to be at least somewhat critical of what is going on there.

That's a good point and while the Leafs young team have certainly made it easier to generally have a mostly positive outlook, the Montreal side of The Athletic has seemed to be at least somewhat critical of what is going on there.

That's not really what I meant. Being critical of a team that seems to be on the wrong track, like Montreal, is pretty safe I think. Most habs fans are probably on board with taking shots at Bergevin and the players and while that may cost a reporter some friendliness with sources(and to be sure the Elliotte Friedman/Chris Johnston style "insider" reporting is its own ball of wax) I don't think it would upset a fanbase.

I'm talking about the issues that are really divisive among a fanbase. Take something like stadium financing or, maybe more pointedly, a Patrick Kane-type situation. If you're aiming to sign up all fans, can you take a strong editorial position on an issue that splits a fanbase?

Because for all of the Tech-Bro bluster about disrupting the idea of the traditional newsroom, that is one of the many dilemmas that modern newspapers ran into. Take any suitably divisive issue and either you have a strong editorial take, in which case you risk alienating readers who come down on one side or the other, or you don't in which case you risk alienating people who think an absence of an editorial stance is in a position of its own.

People refusing to read news from an ideological bent(or even perceived bent) that in anyway challenges their own preconceived notions is one of the things that drove news readership down(or splintered it, anyway). I don't know how any media organization can put off that reality indefinitely.

Because for all of the Tech-Bro bluster about disrupting the idea of the traditional newsroom, that is one of the many dilemmas that modern newspapers ran into. Take any suitably divisive issue and either you have a strong editorial take, in which case you risk alienating readers who come down on one side or the other, or you don't in which case you risk alienating people who think an absence of an editorial stance is in a position of its own.

This is the crux of the issue for many news outlets in general, let alone sports sections, but they tend to be better equipped to handle it (actual journalism). I don't see The Athletic tackling it systematically anytime soon with their focus on growth and sustainability. That's the sort of risk people can take after they have tenure.

What The Athletic seems to want to disrupt is the click/ad-revenue driven decision making that has permeated newspapers as they try to find a model to adapt to the way people consume their news/media nowadays. I do hope they can one day get to the sort of independent investigative journalism you're referring to, Nik.

That's a good point and while the Leafs young team have certainly made it easier to generally have a mostly positive outlook, the Montreal side of The Athletic has seemed to be at least somewhat critical of what is going on there.

That's not really what I meant. Being critical of a team that seems to be on the wrong track, like Montreal, is pretty safe I think. Most habs fans are probably on board with taking shots at Bergevin and the players and while that may cost a reporter some friendliness with sources(and to be sure the Elliotte Friedman/Chris Johnston style "insider" reporting is its own ball of wax) I don't think it would upset a fanbase.

I'm talking about the issues that are really divisive among a fanbase. Take something like stadium financing or, maybe more pointedly, a Patrick Kane-type situation. If you're aiming to sign up all fans, can you take a strong editorial position on an issue that splits a fanbase?

Because for all of the Tech-Bro bluster about disrupting the idea of the traditional newsroom, that is one of the many dilemmas that modern newspapers ran into. Take any suitably divisive issue and either you have a strong editorial take, in which case you risk alienating readers who come down on one side or the other, or you don't in which case you risk alienating people who think an absence of an editorial stance is in a position of its own.

People refusing to read news from an ideological bent(or even perceived bent) that in anyway challenges their own preconceived notions is one of the things that drove news readership down(or splintered it, anyway). I don't know how any media organization can put off that reality indefinitely.

Thanks for elaborating Nik, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

What would be your solution out of curiosity?

Is it possible to grow a business and maintain editorial integrity on the level you mentioned?

What The Athletic seems to want to disrupt is the click/ad-revenue driven decision making that has permeated newspapers as they try to find a model to adapt to the way people consume their news/media nowadays. I do hope they can one day get to the sort of independent investigative journalism you're referring to, Nik.

I might be splitting hairs here but I don't really think what I'm talking about is strictly journalism(and it definitely isn't investigative). I think, you know, having an opinion on say the Ray Rice situation or something similar that might crop up in the future isn't really something you need to dig into. It's a complicated question that sports media can't ignore but I don't know you'll ever arrive at a definitive answer through reporting. It's something you have to stick your neck out a little on.

Maybe it's just me but after people got over Mather's desire to crush his enemies and hear the lamentation of their women I think the reaction to the NYT article settled into a slightly more interesting question which is whether or not the guys at the head of the Athletic are really in it for the long haul. There was something about the way they described their business model that made me think of Amazon. The whole "Get as big as you can as fast as you can by cornering a market and worry about profitability later" thing worries people a bit because of the many, many failed attempts to really turn a profit via a subscription model for journalism. I think some people think that it looks like what these guys are doing are building a bubble of of a subscriber base by giving them a ton of content without any ads so that they'll have an attractive asset to sell and let turning the Athletic into a profitable, sustainable venture be an issue for whoever they eventually sell the company to.

Either way, and this is me sticking my neck way out here, I don't think yesterday was great for them.

I might be splitting hairs here but I don't really think what I'm talking about is strictly journalism(and it definitely isn't investigative). I think, you know, having an opinion on say the Ray Rice situation or something similar that might crop up in the future isn't really something you need to dig into. It's a complicated question that sports media can't ignore but I don't know you'll ever arrive at a definitive answer through reporting. It's something you have to stick your neck out a little on.

Ah, that's my misread and not your over-specificity. If they don't do it on their articles, the authors (at least the ones I follow more closely), definitely do take stands with regards to their subject matter (Lupul, Corrado, Robidas, Leivo, Michalek, Laich) but so far they have been soft topics.

Thanks for elaborating Nik, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

What would be your solution out of curiosity?

Is it possible to grow a business and maintain editorial integrity on the level you mentioned?

I think I would have said yes up until recently but post-Gawker I have no idea. Which, for what it's worth, I think was driving a lot of the reaction to the article yesterday. The perception being that one of the few success stories of independent journalism was brought down because a Silicon Valley Billionaire had a vendetta against them and then you had people from a similar background hinting that they doing this with an adversarial approach to other outlets was always going to ruffle feathers.

I guess I still think you can start and grow a journalism venture based on good work but where I have doubts is whether you can grow it at a rate that would please venture capital firms. To the extent that it's sustainable is anyone's guess. Like I said to Herman though, yesterday's article really made me question whether long term sustainability is really the goal for the people in charge right now.

But that said they seem to be selling a product some people want for a price those people are willing to pay so...enjoy the ride I suppose. Grantland wasn't ultimately sustainable but it was fun while it lasted.

TSN has cancelled The Reporters which is sad for me. I haven't watched the show in a while and I don't think it was ever as good as ESPN's The Sports Reporters(mainly because they kept Steve Simmons around) but guys like Hodge, Farber, Arthur and some others were good and it used to be a pretty regular part of my Sunday mornings.

Craig Custance has a new podcast called The Full 60, where he spends an hour talking to hockey people about whatever topic and it’s some fun curtain peeling.

The latest episode (https://soundcloud.com/user-38892502-274623174/full-60-episode-5-gm-john-chayka-on-his-approach-to-roster-building) is with John Chayka, GM of the Arizona Coyotes, on his approach to the rebuild.

I’m at the part where he’s talking about how they interviewed for their head coach this season. He had his analytics/video teams whip up a team breakdown for each of the finalists (similar to how a coaching staff with analyze an upcoming opponent) and point out issues and break downs that occurred in that coach’s previous tenure to see how they would respond and approach solutions and which coach had a growth mindset.

Last night we captured surveillance footage of a vandal trying to break in to one of our employee's vehicles in our parking lot. While the suspect is still at large, we took the liberty to have John Curley give his play-by-play of the incident.

Last night we captured surveillance footage of a vandal trying to break in to one of our employee's vehicles in our parking lot. While the suspect is still at large, we took the liberty to have John Curley give his play-by-play of the incident.